NRI PULSE STAFF REPORT
Washington D.C., December 18, 2025: Indian American–owned businesses were placed at the center of a heated debate over federal minority contracting this week after an investigative journalist told U.S. senators that a program originally designed to remedy historic discrimination against Black Americans has, in practice, shifted sharply toward benefiting other groups — particularly South Asian immigrants working in government IT contracting.
Luke Rosiak, an investigative reporter with The Daily Wire, delivered the testimony during a hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, chaired by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) with Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) as the ranking member. The hearing examined the effectiveness and integrity of the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Business Development Program, a federal initiative created in 1978 to support socially and economically disadvantaged entrepreneurs.
Rosiak told lawmakers that while at least five percent of all federal contracting dollars now flow through minority and women-owned business set-asides, “very little” of that money reaches Black Americans — the group the program was originally intended to help. Instead, he argued, a disproportionate share is going to firms owned by South Asian immigrants, particularly Indian Americans operating in the Washington, D.C., suburbs.
“By one measure, South Asians from the country of India gobble up a lion’s share of 8(a) contracts, while Black Americans receive only about 15 percent,” Rosiak said, adding that many of the contracts are concentrated in the lucrative IT sector.
The Atul Kathuria example
As an illustration, Rosiak cited the case of OCT Consulting LLC, an IT firm owned by Atul Kathuria, which he said received 19 federal contracts totaling $43 million without competitive bidding after being certified as a “Subcontinent Asian Indian-American Owned Small Business 8(a) Participant.”
According to Rosiak, the company listed a private residence in McLean, Virginia — one of the wealthiest suburbs in the country — as its business address. He said the federal government did not solicit competing bids for the contracts, a process that would ordinarily be illegal but is permitted under 8(a) rules.
Rosiak further noted that Kathuria previously worked for major consulting firms, including Ernst & Young and Booz Allen Hamilton, and attended George Washington University, challenging the notion that he faced the type of systemic disadvantage the program was designed to address. He also pointed to public real estate records showing that Kathuria purchased an 11,000-square-foot estate for approximately $7 million earlier this year.
Rosiak argued that Indian Americans, as a demographic group, are the highest-earning population in the United States, with median household incomes exceeding those of white Americans — a fact he said undermines the program’s premise when applied broadly by race.
Broader allegations of systemic abuse
Beyond individual cases, Rosiak alleged that the 8(a) program has evolved into what he described as a “pass-through” system that allows large defense and consulting firms — including Accenture, Deloitte, Booz Allen Hamilton, and Lockheed Martin — to avoid competitive bidding by subcontracting work through certified minority-owned firms.
He told senators that government contracting officers often encourage large corporations to partner with an 8(a) firm as a shortcut, allowing contracts to be awarded quickly while inflating costs and weakening oversight.
“The scandal isn’t that there are a few bad actors,” Rosiak said. “The scandal is that it’s hard to find an example that isn’t.”
Legal pressure mounting
The testimony comes amid growing legal uncertainty surrounding race-based federal programs. Following the Supreme Court’s 2023 Students for Fair Admissions decision, courts have barred the SBA from automatically presuming disadvantage based on race alone. As a result, applicants must now submit individualized narratives describing social disadvantage — a change critics say is subjective and difficult to verify.
Rosiak told the committee that similar minority contracting programs at other federal agencies, including the Department of Transportation, have also been halted by court injunctions. He said the Biden administration has acknowledged it may not be able to defend the constitutionality of these programs in their current form.
Ongoing debate
Supporters of the 8(a) program argue that it remains an important tool for helping small businesses gain a foothold in federal contracting and that abuses should be addressed through stronger oversight rather than elimination. Critics, including Rosiak, counter that the program has drifted far from its original purpose and now incentivizes influence-peddling while sidelining the communities it was meant to serve.
The Senate committee is expected to continue examining the future of the 8(a) program as lawmakers weigh reforms amid mounting legal, political, and fiscal pressure.
